DOI: 10.1051/forest:2003053Original article Structure, spatial distribution and competition in mixed jack pine Pinus banksiana stands on clay soils of eastern Canada Martin BÉLANDa,b*,
Trang 1DOI: 10.1051/forest:2003053
Original article
Structure, spatial distribution and competition in mixed jack pine
(Pinus banksiana) stands on clay soils of eastern Canada
Martin BÉLANDa,b*, Jean-Martin LUSSIERc, Yves BERGERONa, Marie-Hélène LONGPRÉa, Michel BÉLANDd
a Groupe de recherche en écologie forestière inter-universitaire et Chaire industrielle CRSNG-UQAT-UQAM en aménagement forestier durable,
Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda (Québec), Canada
b Present address: Université de Moncton, Edmundston Campus, Faculty of Forestry, Edmundston, NB, Canada
c Canadian Forestry Service, Laurentian Forestry Centre, Québec, Canada
d Réseau québécois de calcul de haute performance, Montréal, Québec, Canada
(Received 24 June 2002; accepted 31 March 2003)
Abstract – The dynamics of pure jack pine (Pinus banksiana) stands and of those also comprising a component of white birch (Betula
papyrifera) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) was assessed in natural post-fire stands on clay soils of eastern Canada boreal mixed
woods in order to shed some light on mechanisms controlling composition Age structures indicated that the presence of birch or aspen merely shortened the establishment of jack pine Basal area structures of jack pine showed lower skewness coefficients in mixtures with birch than in pure jack pine stands or when mixed with aspen indicating that birch is probably a weaker competitor Its effect on mean pine diameter probably reflects the lower pine stem density when mixed with birch Inter-specific competition however had no effect on pine diameter at the tree level Competition between birch, aspen and pine is avoided by species spatial exclusion measured by Ripley’s statistic and reflects the reproductive strategies of the species and history of the site
Ripley’s K / asymmetric competition / interspecific competition / composition / stand structure
Résumé – Structure, distribution spatiale et compétition dans les peuplements mélangés et purs de pin gris (Pinus banksiana) sur argile dans l’est canadien Nous avons étudié la dynamique des peuplements de pin gris purs (Pinus banksiana) et mélangés au bouleau à papier
(Betula papyrifera) et au peuplier faux-tremble (Populus tremuloides), établis naturellement après un incendie sur sol argileux en forêt boréale
mixte de l’est canadien dans le but de mieux comprendre ce qui contrôle leur composition Les structures d’âge indiquent peu de différence dans le délai d’établissement du pin gris selon la composition Les surfaces terrières des pins gris montrent de plus faibles coefficients d’asymétrie en mélange avec le bouleau qu’avec le peuplier, ce qui laisse à penser que le bouleau est un plus faible compétiteur L’effet du bouleau sur le diamètre moyen du pin reflète la plus faible densité du pin en peuplements mélangés à du bouleau La compétition interspécifique n’a cependant pas affecté le diamètre du pin à l’échelle de l’arbre La compétition interspécifique est évitée par l’exclusion spatiale des espèces mise en évidence par la statistique de Ripley, ce qui reflète leur stratégies reproductives et l’historique du site
statistique K de Ripley / compétition asymétrique / compétition interspécifique / composition / structure des peuplements
1 INTRODUCTION
The dynamics of jack pine stands on sandy or
coarse-tex-tured soils have been described in detail [10, 12, 16, 24, 25, 35,
45] Jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.), white birch (Betula
papyrifera Marsh.) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides
Michx.) stands occur extensively and in various mixtures in
the post-fire landscapes of the clay belt of Ontario and Quebec
[28] However, information about these stands is more limited
[1, 3]
Longpré et al [28] have compared the growth of jack pine
in pure jack pine stands and stands mixed with aspen or birch
They found no difference in the effect of intraspecific compe-tition from jack pine and interspecific compecompe-tition from aspen Their results also led them to believe that birch was not as good a competitor as jack pine because of its slower height growth rate [6]
The aim of this paper, is to investigate in more detail the dynamics of post-fire pure and mixed jack pine stands on clay soils in order to clarify the mechanisms controlling their com-position Specifically, we use a set of complementary tools to (i) compare the age structures in order to see if the establish-ment period of jack pine after fire differs in various species mixtures; (ii) compare the size structures of each species to
* Corresponding author: mbeland@umce.ca
Trang 2explore the types of competition (symetric competition for soil
resources or assymetric competition for light) occurring
between trees of the same species and of different species [30,
43]; (iii) relate jack pine diameter to intra- and inter-specific
competition at the tree level and (iv) compare the spatial
dis-tribution of trees of each species in order to evaluate the
pro-portion of the stand experiencing interspecific or intraspecific
competition
We hypothesize that jack pine establishment period in jack
pine mixed with aspen or birch is not different from that of
pure stands Because of the high productivity of clay soils in
the study area [3], we suppose that competition for light is the
major limiting growth factor in jack pine stands Additionally,
because of the difference in relative growth rates of the three
species [6, 32], we suppose there is a gradient of increasing
intensity of competition exerted upon jack pine trees by birch,
jack pine to aspen This gradient should be noticeable by
increased skewness of size distribution of jack pine
Accord-ingly, accompanying species are expected to have higher
skewness of size distribution when they are supressed and
lower skewness of size distribution when they are dominant
over jack pine The gradient just described should also be
noticeable by an effect of species-specific competition index
on the DBH of jack pine
The spatial distribution of trees in mixed and pure jack pine
stands are expected to reflect the species dominant
reproduc-tive strategies White birch stem patterns is expected to be
clumpy due to its stump sprout origin and that of aspen is
expected to be more random since it can root sprout as
individ-ual stems at a long distance from the other trees of its parent
clone [27] Consequently, aspen stems will be competing with
a greater number of jack pine than birch stems Some authors
have hypothesized that competition between tree species have
a large impact on spatial patterns of trees (association or
repul-sion) [37] But spatial patterns of mixed species stands could
also be related to site history The study of spatial patterns of
trees can be useful in explaining the intensity of competition
measured with competition indices
2 METHODS
2.1 Study area
The study area is located in the southern portion of Hébécourt
township, Québec (48° 30’ N, 79° 30’ W), where the forest originated
from a large fire in 1923 [11] The stands are even aged The area is
located at the southern tip of the Clay Belt of northwestern Quebec
and is included in the ecological region of the Amos Lowlands, which
is characterized by glaciolacustrine clay deposits originating from the
presence of the proglacial Lakes Barlow and Ojibway [42] It is also
at the southern limit of the Boreal Forest [36], within the balsam fir
(Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) – paper birch domain [39] The regional
climate is cold and continental with a mean annual temperature of
0.4 °C and annual precipitation of 800–900 mm, falling mostly
dur-ing the growdur-ing season [15] Although the average frost-free period
is 147 days per year, the risk of frost persists throughout the year [44]
The sites where jack pine is found vary between two extremes:
thin organic soil on rock and moderately to well-drained lacustrine
clay deposits with a high base content [5]
2.2 Data
To minimize the effect of abiotic factors, the study sites were all selected on a similar site type: moderately well-drained glacio-lacus-trine clay The ecological mapping of the area [4] was used for site selection Three stand types were selected: (i) pure jack pine stands, (ii) mixture of jack pine and trembling aspen, and (iii) mixture of jack pine and paper birch Five 400-m2 square plots were selected per stand type, and the 15 plots were well distributed over the 5-km2 study area In the mixed stands, the proportion of stems (greater than
10 cm DBH) of each species was approximately 50%
In each plot, a soil profile was described to verify that they all were on moderately drained clays All trees (an average of 44 trees per plot, range 26–52) were mapped and had their DBH measured Between 16 and 19 jack pine trees per plot were cored with an incre-ment borer for age determination
2.3 Analysis
2.3.1 Age structure
The quartiles of age (1st quartile, median and 3rd quartile) of the jack pine population of each stand were used in order to compare the age structure of the three stand types We chose this parameter because we were not so much interested in the form of the age struc-ture as in the possible delay in stand establishment, i.e time for estab-lishment of 25%, 50% and 75% of the stems Moreover, we think that mean age would have been misleading because distributions were skewed towards younger ages A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare mean values between stand types Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance confirmed validity of the ANOVA
2.3.2 Size structure
The theories of Weiner [43] about competition have the potential
to be applied to mixed stands These theories explore the frequency distribution in size of individuals in a population rather than the mean An initially normal distributed population will first become positively skewed as a result of variance in initial exponential growth even without competitive interaction between individuals [30] When competition is introduced, size structures become positively skewed
as a result of differences in relative growth rate of small and large trees [31] When competition is assymetric, as in competition for light, large individuals suppress growth of smaller ones more than would be expected from their relative sizes [14, 33, 46] A population with a more asymmetric size structure is assumed to experience more asymmetric competition for light whereas a population with a more symmetric size structure would compete for other resources Prob-lems usually encountered in the application of this approach to tree populations are various: trees grow slowly and experience mortality, sites are seldom comparable, age is not the same and real size data are not always reliable In addition, such applications usually deal with intraspecific competition [8, 18, 25, 26, 30, 31]
The data gathered by Longpré et al [28] is well suited for this type of application Among the size variables available, we chose tree basal area because it was available for every species and because
it was assumed to be more closely related to tree volume than DBH Inequality in the basal area distribution was evaluated by the skewness coefficient One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare skewness between stand types Multiple comparisons were performed using the Tukey procedure at the 0.05 significance level
Trang 32.3.3 Competition index
For all jack pine trees in each of the 15 stands, except those whose
competitors were located outside the plot, a competition index was
computed that differentiates the contribution of each competing
spe-cies The chosen index is modified from Hegyi’s competition index
[21]:
where is DBH of jth competitor, is DBH of subject
tree i, is the linear distance between ith subject tree and the jth
competitor Competitor trees included in the calculation of the index
were limited to those closer than a certain radius from the target tree
[21] We tested radii from 3 to 9 m We chose this index because it
was simple to use and, according to Holmes and Reed [22], performs
as well as more complex indices This index was modified to
differ-entiate the relative influence of competitor species:
Multiple linear regressions were performed with jack pine DBH as
dependent variable and the various components of competition as
measured by the competition indices and the total index as
independ-ent variables Selection of the variables was performed with the
step-wise procedure The procedure was repeated for each radius A
nor-mality test performed on regression residuals confirmed the validity
of the regressions
2.3.4 Spatial distribution
Analysis of the spatial distribution of trees in each stand was
per-formed using Ripley’s K(d) function [34] This method tests
random-ness of the distribution at multiple scales, based on the Poisson
distri-bution, by examining the proportion of total possible pairs of points
whose pair members are within a specified distance (d) of each other
We applied a square root transformation
L(d) = that linearize K(d), stabilizes its variance and has an expected value
of zero under the Poisson assumption [7] The test of departure from
a random distribution is evaluated by determining a 95% Monte Carlo
envelope The approximate interpretation of the results leads to
con-sider that, for a clustering pattern, L(d) is greater than this envelope,
for a random pattern, it is within the envelope, and for a regular
pat-tern, L(d) is below the envelope [13] The univariate L(d) statistic
was computed for each species separately The bivariate L12(d)
sta-tistic was computed to assess the spatial relationship between com-peting species [29] For this L12(d) statistic, 2 null hypothesis are commonly used: random labelling and population independence Since 2 different species are concerned, the latter was tested by com-paring L12(d) against a 95% Monte Carlo envelope defining inde-pendence of the two species [19] L12(d) values above the enveloppe indicate spatial attraction and values below indicate spatial repulsion between the two species [29] Univariate L(d), bivariate L12(d) and Monte Carlo envelopes were computed using Potemkin software developed by John Brzustowski from University of Alberta Potem-kin uses Ripley’s [34] method of edge correction in which the sum calculated for each tree is weighed by the fraction of the circumfer-ence of a circle defining the neighbourhood assessed that lies within the sampled region
3 RESULTS 3.1 Age structures
Overall, the age of sampled jack pine trees varied between
69 and 45 years with peaks between 65 and 60 years These ages correspond to a period of establishment extending from the 1923 fire up to 22 years after fire but 75% of trees were established within 10 years after fire The first quartile of establishment time since fire is significantly higher in pure stands than in stands mixed with either aspen or birch; the first 25% of pine trees in pure stands establishes approximately 1.5 years later than in mixed stands (Tab I) Median and 3rd quartile are not significantly different between stand types indicating that later establishment is not delayed by compan-ion species
3.2 Size structures
Skewness of basal area distribution was positive no matter the stand type and was much higher for jack pine in pure stands and in mixture with aspen than in mixture with birch Moreover, skewness for aspen was very small compared with that for birch (Fig 1) There is a trend toward higher values of skewness for jack pine in mixture with aspen than in pure stands, but the difference is very small and not significant (Tab II) However, aspen shows very low values of skewness compared to its pine competitor
Hegyi i DBH j⁄DBH i
R ij2
-j= 1
n
∑
=
R ij
Hegyi i = [Hegyi i Pinus, ]+[Hegyi i other species, ]
K d( ) π
- d–
Table I Effect of stand type on 1st quartile, median and 3rd quartile of time after the stand initiating fire of jack pine trees.
Variable Source Sum of squares df Mean square F P
1st quartile Stand type 6.749 2 3.374 7.540 0.008
Error 13.362 12 1.114 3rd quartile Stand type 4.003 2 2.002 1.833 0.202
Tukey comparison of means
Stand type Pure jack pine Jack pine + white birch Jack pine + trembling aspen
Means with the same letter are not significantly different between stand types.
Trang 43.3 Effect of competition on dbh
Multiple linear regressions measuring the effect of various
sources of competition on DBH of jack pine trees indicated
that the index combining all species was the only component
retained by the stepwise procedure except for stands mixed
with birch where the contribution of black spruce (a minor
component of some of the stands) was also significant The
radius chosen for the calculation of the competition indices
was 6 m (lower radii had smaller R2 and higher had to few
subject trees) Competition from aspen or birch had little effect
on the DBH of jack pine on the three stand types Adjusted R2
for the regressions varied between 0.58 and 0.768 (Tab III)
3.4 Spatial distributions
L statistic for the spatial distribution of trees in one of the
5 pure jack pine stands is presented in Figure 2a superimposed
on the complete spatial randomness 95% Monte Carlo
enve-lope For concision, we combined the five stands on the same
graph but showed only the L statistic for the range of values
that are over their envelope (significantly clumped) and below
their envelope (significantly regular) for the five stands
(Fig 2b) This graph indicates that stems are usually randomly
distributed at all scales except for a tendency to have a uniform
distribution at a scale between 1–1.5 m for all five stands
(Fig 2) Some uniformity is still to be found at distance 6 m
The spatial distribution of trees in jack pine stands mixed
with birch shows that jack pine trees are randomly distributed
at all scales for three of the five stands and have a clumped
distribution at scales higher than 3.6 m for the two remaining
stands (Fig 3a) One exception to that is a trend toward
uni-formity between 1–3 m (Fig 3a) Birch trees are clumped at
small scales with a trend towards uniform distribution at larger
scales (Fig 3b) The bivariate statistic shows the two species
are independant except for repulsion at 3 m and 6 m (Fig 3c)
Individual stand graphs (not shown) indicate that this repulsion
is present only on one stand
The spatial distribution of trees in jack pine stands mixed with aspen shows that jack pine trees are usually clumped at scales between 6 and 10 m otherwise, they are randomly dis-tributed (Fig 4a) Aspen trees are clumped through a large range of scales for most stands (Fig 4b) The bivariate statistic shows repulsion between the two species for a wide range of scales (Fig 4c)
4 DISCUSSION
The results of this study shed some light on some of the processes controlling stand composition, structure and spatial distribution in mixed pine stands on clay soils
Table II Effect of stand type on skewness of basal area distribution
of the three main tree species in pure jack pine stands and stands
composed of a mixture of jack pine and white birch and jack pine
and trembling aspen
Source DF Mean square P > F
Stand type 4 0.498 0.711
Error 19 0.929
Table III Multiple linear regression of jack pine DBH as a function
of various sources of competition from trees inside a 6 m radius for the three stand types
Stand type Model Unstandardized
coefficients
Standardized coefficients
P
Pure pine Adj R 2 = 0.580,
N = 38
Constant All species Pin cherry
24.742 –1.267 –6.49
–0.763 –0.259
0.000 0.000 0.021 Excluded
variables:
Pine Black spruce White birch White spruce
0.766 –0.040 –0.088 0.175
0.466 0.712 0.423 0.105 Pine with birch
Adj R 2 = 0.724,
N = 11
Constant All species Black spruce
31.122 –2.283 –12.831
–0.724 –0.547
0.000 0.002 0.011 Excluded
variables:
Pine White birch White spruce Trembling aspen Salix
–0.283 0.044 0.107 –0.169 0.460
0.676 0.825 0.579 0.397 0.646 Pine with aspen
Adj R 2 = 0.768,
N = 15
Constant All species
28.116 – 2.979 –0.886
0.000 0.000
Excluded variables:
Pine White birch Trembling aspen
–0.193 0.007 0.099
0.451 0.963 0.465
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
Pure Mixed with aspen Mixed with birch
Stand type
Pine Aspen Birch
Figure 1 Skewness of basal area distribution of the
three main tree species in 68-years old pure jack pine stands, stands mixed with aspen and stands mixed with white birch
Trang 5Establishment of most of jack pine trees within about
10 years is consistent with Gauthier et al [17] who reported
age structures indicative of establishment within 10 to
20 years after fire on mesic mainland jack pine populations of
the same area The small initial delay in tree establishment in
pure stands relative to mixed stands, is small enough to allow
us to use DBH as a surrogate for diameter growth for further
analysis It also excludes the possibility that the outcome of
competition between species be influenced by such a delay at
least for this particular fire year It would have been interesting
to also core aspen and birch trees to see if they experience the
same delay
As of the size structures, in theory, high values of skewness
of size structure ought to be associated with a population
experiencing more assymetric competition for light whereas
low values are expected for symmetric competition for soil
resources This could explain why jack pine shows low
skewness when mixed with birch and seems to confirm the
hypothesis of Longpré et al [28] about lower competition for
light from birch than from pine or aspen The very high values
of skewness for birch trees in mixtures with pine is consistent
with the fact that birch trees are overtopped by pine trees
Although comparisons of size inequalities to characterize
competition between species are not common in the literature
and should be made with caution, low values of skewness of
aspen compared with pine in mixtures could indicate that aspen
is a stronger competitor than jack pine
The influence of mortality might have had an important
influence on our results According to Mohler et al [30],
skewness is supposed to be maximal just prior to the beginning
of self thinning Skewness is expected to be reduced afterwards
as the smaller trees in the understory die but still be positive
Some mortality was recorded in the studied stands However,
if the mortality was due to old tree senescence rather than to self-thinning, then any inference concerning the influence of spatial patterns and competition on diameter growth would be biased because of the loss of large trees that had an important competitive effect However, field observation of the relative diameter of dead trees and their coordinates indicates that they are predominantly small trees from the understory that died from self-thinning
In order to see if results from the analysis of size structures can be extrapolated to other stands, 1719 stands of various species composition and soil type were selected in the data-base of the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources temporary sample plots for the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region These plots indicate that skewness of basal area distribution do not follow exactly the same trends as in study plots (unpublished) Conversely, there was no difference in skewness in basal area distribution of jack pine between pure jack pine stands and stands composed of a mixture of jack pine and either of white birch or aspen Trembling aspen basal area distribution did not show a lower skewness than that of jack pine when mixed together but did show a significanly higher skewness in pure stands Birch skewness was not significantly different between pure stands or mixtures with pine However, skewness of birch
in pure stands was higher than that of jack pine and was not significantly different from that of birch in mixture with jack pine The trend in aspen skewness seems to confirm that intra-specific competition is of higher intensity than inter-intra-specific competition [38] The trend in birch is in contradiction with our hypothesis of higher intensity of competition exerted on birch when overtopped by pine One possible explanation of these results is that pure stands would be more regular and thus have fewer gaps which is confirmed in the study plots for pine stands but would have to be confirmed for pure birch and pure aspen stands since no stem mapping was done on those plots
Figure 2 Ripley’s univariate L statistic
showing the spatial patterns of trees in 68-years old pure jack pine stands (a) L statis-tic for one of the 5 stands superimposed
on the complete spatial randomness 95% Monte Carlo envelope, (b) L statistic for the range of values that are over their envelope (significantly clumped “+”) and below their envelope (significantly regular “”) for the five stands
Trang 6The little effect of the presence of nearby aspen or birch on
the DBH of jack pine trees on the three stand types support
Szwagrzyk’s [38] hypothesis that intra-specific competition is
more intense than inter-specific competition
The uniform distribution of jack pine stems at a scale of 1–
1.5 m is probably indicative of the scale at which competition
between jack pine trees influence stem distribution, i.e two
jack pine stems tend to exclude themselves when closer than
1.5 m apart Uniformity found at distance 6 m is consistent with
the fact that radius 6 m is the best radius for the competition
index The random distribution of jack pine is consistent with
its reproduction by seed Kenkel et al [25, 26] and Yarranton
and Yarranton [45] have shown that the distribution of jack
pine trees evolved with stand development from random at a young age toward uniform as a consequence of self-thinning The trend toward uniformity of jack pine tree distribution in mixture with birch may be explained in the same way as for pure stands
The spatial independance of jack pine and birch is explained
by birch reproducing itself by seed and by stump sprouts and
by its lower position in the canopy Seed-origin birch trees are probably randomly distributed and intricately mixed among pines and influence little the spatial structure of pines, whereas stump sprouts produce clumps of stems that are variable in size Larger clumps exclude pine trees over a larger area which explains the occurence of spatial repulsion in one of the stands,
Figure 3 Ripley’s L statistic showing the
spatial patterns of trees in five 68-years old stands composed of a mixture of jack pine and white birch (a) univariate L statistic for the range of values that are over their com-plete spatial randomness 95% Monte Carlo envelope (significantly clumped “+”) and below their envelope (significantly regular
“”) computed for jack pine alone, (b) uni-variate statistic computed for birch alone and c Bivariate L12 statistic computed to test the the relationship between jack pine and white birch (values above their enve-lope indicate attraction between species “+” and values below their envelope indicate spatial repulsion between species “”)
Trang 7whereas small clumps probably have no effect Birch clumps
are probably uniformly distributed These results and the
trends in skewness of basal area of pine in mixtures with birch
(described above) leads us to think that birch influence on pine
could be limited to symmetric competition for soil resources
This effect was apparent at the stand level in Longpré et al [28]
because the two species are more intricately mixed as a result
of smaller stump sprout clumps than aspen root sucker clumps
Spatial repulsion between pine and aspen might be
explained by the strong dominance of vegetative reproduction
by root suckers for the regeneration of trembling aspen [27]
Aspen trees form large clumps that exclude pine trees Between
clumps of aspen, pine trees are randomly distributed
These results added to the fact that competition from aspen
in mature stands did not significantly reduce the diameter
growth of individual stems of jack pine and did not impact jack
pine basal area structure are consistent with the lack of
difference in mean jack pine diameter observed by Longpré
et al [28] and are explained by the fact that the two species are not intricately mixed but rather form clumps Competition between pine and aspen is thus limited to a relatively small proportion of trees in mixed stand
Overall, since competition from companion species seems not to have had a large influence on the establishment delay, size structure and growth of jack pine in mature stands, we are forced to conclude that actual spatial structure and composition
of the stands is either dependent on pre-fire stand composition, reproductive strategies of the species involved (as mentioned earlier) or on competition induced mortality that may have occured earlier in stand development According to Greene and Johnson [20], post-fire composition in aspen, jack pine and black spruce stands is largely dependant on composition before fire This stability in forest composition could be caused by the effect of forest composition on fire intensity; jack pine fuels
Figure 4 Ripley’s L statistic showing the spatial
patterns of trees in five 68-years old stands com-posed of a mixture of jack pine and trembling aspen (a) univariate L statistic for the range of values that are over their complete spatial ran-domness 95% Monte Carlo envelope (signifi-cantly clumped “+”) and below their envelope (significantly regular “”) computed for jack pine alone, (b) univariate statistic computed for aspen alone and (c) Bivariate L12 statistic computed to test the the relationship between jack pine and trembling aspen (values above their envelope indicate attraction between species “+” and values below their envelope indicate spatial repulsion between species “”)
Trang 8would favor more intense fires that kill most of the aspen roots
and aspen fuels would lower fire intensity favoring more aspen
root suckering Another hypothesis involves the influence of
aspen wood ash which Thomas and Wein [41] showed to be
detrimental to jack pine germination before its alcaline content
is drained away by rain The main weaknesses of these
conclu-sions is in the lack of data on stands at an earlier developmental
stage and for different fire years
Based on that process, our study may have implications for
forest management since it is possible that cutting could favor
forest compositions dominated by aspen more so than fire
would [2, 9] even when large seedling stock are used [23, 40]
Greene and Johnson [20] argued that initial high aspen
densi-ties found after cutting are likely to diminish due to rapid
self-thinning among root suckers However, that may not be
enough to change the relative dominance of species
Our study could also have implications for the development
of growth and stand dynamics models of the boreal mixed
woods of Canada Among other things, they stress the
importance of explicitly taking into account the spatial
distribution of trees A model like SORTIE, in the process of
being calibrated in the study area would respond to this
concern
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge financial
support from the NSERC-UQAT-UQAM Industrial Chair in
Sustainable Forest Management for a post-doc fellowship to Martin
Béland and from the Faculty of Forestry of Université de Moncton and
from the Groupe de recherche en écologie forestière interuniversitaire
(GREFi) for assistance to the publication The original study was
funded by Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources Tembec inc and
Norbord Industries inc made plots accessible for the study We
acknowledge M François Goreaud for his thorough review of the
manuscript and his help with Ripley’s statistical analyses
REFERENCES
[1] Béland M., Dynamique et sylviculture des pinèdes à pin gris dans
la ceinture d’argile du nord-Ouest québécois, Ph.D thesis at
UQAM, 2000.
[2] Béland M., Zarnovican R., Bergeron Y., Natural regenaration of
jack pine following harvesting and site preparation in the clay belt
of northwestern Québec, For Chron 75 (1999) 821–831.
[3] Béland M., Bergeron Y., Height growth of jack pine (Pinus
banksiana) in relation to site types in boreal forests of Abitibi,
Québec, Can J For Res 26 (1996) 2170–2179.
[4] Béland M., Bergeron Y., Harvey B., Robert D., Quebec’s
ecological framework for forest management: a case study in
Abitibi, For Ecol Manage 49 (1992) 247–266.
[5] Bergeron Y., Camiré C., Bouchard A., Gangloff P., Analyse et
classification des sols pour une étude écologique intégrée d’un
secteur de l’Abitibi, Québec, Géogr Phys Quat 36 (1982) 291–
305.
[6] Bergeron Y., Charron D., Post-fire stand dynamics in Quebec’s
southern boreal forest: a dendroecological approach, Eco-Science 1
(1994) 173–184.
[7] Besag J., Contribution to the discussion of Dr Ripley’s paper, J R.
Statist Soc B 39 (1977) 193–195.
[8] Brand D.G., Magnussen S., Assymmetric, two-sided competition in
even-aged monocultures of red pine, Can J For Res 18 (1988)
901–910.
[9] Calmels S., Béland M., Bergeron Y., Jack pine regeneration on clay from slash compared with plantation, Forestry Chronicle (to be published).
[10] Cayford J.H., McRae D.J., The ecological role of fire in jack pine forests, in: Wein R.W., MacLean D.A (Eds.), The Role of Fire
in Northern Circumpolar Ecosystems, John Wiley and Sons, Chapter 10, 1983, pp 183–198.
[11] Dansereau P.-R., Bergeron Y., Fire history in the southern boreal forest of northwestern Quebec, Can J For Res 23 (1993) 25–32 [12] Day R.J., Woods G.T., The role of wildfire in the ecology of jack and red pine forest in Quetico Provincial Park, Atikokan District, North Central Region: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; Report No 5, 1977, 79 p.
[13] Diggle P.J., Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns, Academic Press, New York, 1983, 148 p.
[14] Duncan R.P., A correction for including competitive asymmetry in measurements of local interference in plant populations, Oecologia
103 (1995) 393–396.
[15] Environment Canada, Normales climatiques au Canada, Vol 2: Températures, Vol 3: Précipitations, Service de l’environnement atmosphérique, Environnement Canada, Ottawa, Ont., 1982 [16] Fayle D.C.F., Bentley C.V., Growth and development of a natural jack pine stand, in: McIver D.C., Street R.B., Auclair A.N (Eds.), Climate Applications in Forest Renewal and Forest Production; Geneva Park, Orilla, Ontario, Atmospheric Environment Service,
1986, pp 145–149.
[17] Gauthier S., Gagnon J., Bergeron Y., Population age structure of
Pinus banksiana at the southern edge of the Canadian boreal forest,
J Veg Sci 4 (1993) 783–790.
[18] Gerry A.K, Wilson S.D., The influence of initial size on the competitive response of six plant species, Ecology 76 (1995) 272– 279.
[19] Goreaud F., Pelissier R., Avoiding misinterpretation of biotic
inte-ractions with the intertype K12-function: population independence
vs random labelling hypotheses, J Veg Sci (to be published).
[20] Greene D.F., Johnson E.A., Modelling recruitement of Populus
tremuloides, Pinus banksiana, and Picea mariana following fire in
the mixedwood boreal forest, Can J For Res 29 (1999) 462–473 [21] Hegyi F., A simulation model for managing jack-pine stands, in Growth models for tree and stand simulation Royal College of Forestry, Stockholm, Sweden, 1974, pp 74–90.
[22] Holmes M.J., Reed D.D., Competition indices for mixed species northern hardwoods, For Sci 37 (1991) 1338–1349.
[23] Jobidon R., Roy V., Cyr G., Net effect of competing vegetation on selected environmental conditions and performance of four spruce seedling stock sizes after eight years in Québec (Canada), Ann For Sci 60 (2003) 691–699.
[24] Kenkel N.C., Pattern of self-thinning in jack pine: testing the random mortality hypothesis, Ecology 69 (1988) 1017–1024 [25] Kenkel N.C., Hoskins J.A., Hoskins W.D., Local competition in a naturally established jack pine stand, Can J Bot 67 (1989) 2630– 2635.
[26] Kenkel N.C., Hoskins J.A., Hoskins W.D., Edge effects in the use
of area polygons to study competition, Ecology 70 (1989) 272–274 [27] Lavertu D., Mauffette Y., Bergeron Y., Effects of stand age and
litter removal on the regeneration of Populus tremuloides, J Veg.
Sci 5 (1994) 561–568.
[28] Longpré M.H., Bergeron Y., Paré D., Béland M., Effects of companion species on the growth of jack pine, Can J For Res 24 (1994) 1846–1853.
[29] Lotwick H.W., Silverman B.W., Methods for analysing spatial processes of several types of points, J R Statist Soc B 44 (1982) 406–413.
[30] Mohler C.L., Marks P.L., Sprugel D.G., Stand structure and allometry of trees during self-thinning of pure stands, J Ecol 66 (1978) 599–614.
Trang 9[31] Nilsson U., Development of growth and stand structure in Picea
abies stands planted at different initial densities, Scand J For Res.
9 (1994) 135–142.
[32] Palik B.J., Pregitzer K.S., Variability in early height growth rate
of forest trees: implications for retrospective studies of stand
dynamics, Can J For Res 25 (1994) 767–776.
[33] Peterson C.J., Squiers E.R., Competition and succession in an
aspen-white pine forest, J Ecol 83 (1995) 449–457.
[34] Ripley B.D., The second-order analysis of stationary point
processes, J Appl Probab 13 (1976) 255–266.
[35] Rouse C., Fire effects in northeastern forests: jack pine, North
Central Forest Experiment Station, St Paul, Minnesota: USDA,
Forest Service, 1986, 8 p.
[36] Rowe J.S, Les régions forestières du Canada, Can For Serv Publ.
1300F.
[37] Szwagrzyk J., Spatial patterns of trees in natural forests of
east-central Europe, J Veg Sci 4 (1993) 469–476.
[38] Szwagrzyk J., Small-scale spatial patterns of trees in a mixed Pinus
sylvestris-Fagus sylvatica forest, For Ecol Manage 51 (1992)
301–315.
[39] Thibault M., Hotte D., Les régions écologiques du Québec méridional, Deuxième approximation, Service de la cartographie, ministère de l’Énergie et des Ressources du Québec, Québec, 1985 [40] Thiffault N., Jobidon R., Munson A.D., Performance and physio-logy of large containerized and bare-root spruce seedlings in rela-tion to scarificarela-tion and competirela-tion in Québec (Canada), Ann For Sci 60 (2003) 645–655.
[41] Thomas P.A., Wein R.W., Amelioration of wood ash toxicity and jack pine establishment, Can J For Res 24 (1994) 748–755 [42] Veillette J., Evolution and paleohydrology of glacial lakes Barlow and Ojibway, Quat Sci Rev 13 (1994) 945–971.
[43] Weiner J., Asymmetric competition in plant populations, Trends Ecol Evol 5 (1990) 360–364.
[44] Wilson C.V., Le climat du Québec Partie 1 : Atlas climatique du Québec Partie 2 Mise en application des renseignements climato-logiques, Service de l’environnement atmosphérique, Environne-ment Canada, Ottawa, Ont Publ 551.582.3 (714), 1973.
[45] Yarranton M., Yarranton G.A., Demography of a jack pine stand, Can J Bot 53 (1975) 310–314.
[46] Yastrebov A.B., Different types of heterogeneity and plant competition in monospecific stands, Oikos 75 (1996) 89–97.
To access this journal online:
www.edpsciences.org